Background Although Lisfranc injuries are uncommon, representing approximately 0.2% of all fractures, they are complex and can result in persistent pain, degenerative arthritis, and loss of function. Both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and primary fusion have been proposed as treatment options for these injuries, but debate remains as to which approach is better. Questions/purposes We asked whether ORIF or primary fusion led to (1) fewer reoperations for hardware removal; (2) less frequent revision surgery; (3) higher patient outcome scores; and (4) more frequent anatomic reduction. Methods A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Three trials met the criteria for inclusion within the meta-analysis. Qualifying articles for the meta-analysis had data extracted independently by two authors (NS, AF). The quality of each study was assessed using the Center for Evidence Based Medicine's evaluation strategy; data were extracted from articles rated as good and fair: two and one article, respectively. Results The risk ratio for hardware removal was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.45; p \ 0.001) indicating more hardware removal for ORIF than fusion. For other revision surgery, the risk ratio for ORIF was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.08-1.59; p = 0.18) favoring neither. Similarly, neither was favored using patient-reported outcomes; the standard mean difference was calculated to be 0.50 (95% CI, À2.13 to 3.12; p = 0.71). When considering the risk of nonanatomic alignment, neither was favored (risk ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, p = 0.60). Conclusions The surgeon should consider the increased risk of hardware removal along with its associated morbidity and discuss this with the patient preoperatively when considering ORIF of Lisfranc injuries. Because no new trials have been performed since 2012, further randomized controlled trials will be needed improve our understanding of these interventions. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

Background: Radiographic measurements to document ankle anatomy have been suggested in recent literature to be inadequate. Focus has been put on stress views and computed tomography; however, there are also issues with these modalities. An orthogonal view that could be used both statically and dynamically could help determine syndesmotic stability. The purpose of this study was to determine a parameter on a normal lateral ankle radiograph that will increase the reliability of standard radiography in diagnosing syndesmotic integrity.Methods: Three orthopedic surgeons reviewed 80 lateral ankle radiographs. Thirty of those radiographs were reviewed on a second occasion. Rotation of the radiographs was determined by evaluating the overlap of the talar dome. Four radiographic parameters were measured 1 cm above the tibial plafond: fibular width, tibial width, and anterior and posterior tibiofibular intervals.Results: Seventy-two radiographs were determined by consensus to be adequate. Means and ratios were documented to determine the relationship of the fibula to the tibia. Interrater reliability ranged from moderate to near-perfect, and the intrarater reliability was documented for each ratio. The anterior tibiofibular ratio was shown to be strong to near-perfect. It demonstrates that 40% of the tibia should be seen anterior to the fibula at 1cm above the tibial plafond. Conclusion:The anterior tibiofibular ratio provides an orthogonal measure for the syndesmosis that, in conjunction with those parameters previously documented, could clinically and economically improve the diagnosis of syndesmotic disruptions.

No abstract

No abstract